|
|
| Yarro to Stay on the SCO Board or Not? |
 |
|
Monday, March 07 2005 @ 12:30 AM EST
|
There is a not-to-be-missed interview with Darl McBride in Business Week, in which he is asked about whether Ralph Yarro will stay on the board at SCO or not. It sounds to me like the answering is a resounding, It depends. On what? On the March 8 hearings in the Canopy litigation. See what you make of this exchange: Q: Do you want him to stay on the board?
A: Ralph has been a great board member. He's been very supportive and valuable in terms of the input he has provided.
Q: What has he helped you do?
A: Ralph has a great entrepreneurial mind. He's been good on intellectual property and legal battles. I wouldn't call him the architect of our legal strategy, but he clearly has added value. How that's all going to play out, I don't know.
Q: Are you concerned about his ability to serve?
A: We had a board meeting last week. The company needs to get some clarity about the situation. It's important to figure out who represents the Canopy shares. As long as the cloud is there regarding the Canopy situation we want to remove the cloud.
Q: Will he stay on the board?
A: No one on the SCO board has asked him to step down. He will continue to serve.
Q: Has the new Canopy management team made any requests yet of SCO?
A: We have had some discussions. I spoke with [new Canopy CEO] Bill Mustard. After the Mar. 8 hearing, I would be glad to provide details. We value them as our largest shareholder.
I gather SCO will wait to see if the cloud over Yarro is removed or not. There is plenty more in the interview, so hop on over and take a look.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: dmarker on Monday, March 07 2005 @ 12:53 AM EST |
| Off Topic posts here ... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dmarker on Monday, March 07 2005 @ 12:56 AM EST |
Yarro is an important part of the SCO vs IBM litigation & always was.
McBride & co believe Yarro has a fair chance of getting back on board at
Canopy (I must confess that I am not confident his ousting will hold up despite
what *we* believe or think of his self-enrichment antics)
I sure hope he doesn't get re-instated.
DSM[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 07 2005 @ 01:14 AM EST |
Trying to help Ralph off the sinking ship? Didn't Ralph claim to design it in
the Forbes article or words to the effect?
Any takers on a bet they will try to put all the blame at the feet of poor
Penrose, or debilitated Noorda?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: belzecue on Monday, March 07 2005 @ 01:15 AM EST |
In the article, Darl says: "We are reaching out to open-source
vendors..."
HAHAHAHAHA... Honestly, Darl, you play the part well of the jilted lover who
pleads, "Honey, come back... what did I do?" I hope you aren't
reaching out to any vendors who use the GPL, or maybe earlier you shouldn't have
said:
"We've felt from Day 1 in this case that building your [business] on the
GPL is like building your headquarters on quicksand," McBride said.
"Everyone is terrified that their intellectual property is going to get
sucked into this GPL machine and get destroyed."
"We've been holding our tongue on the GPL until IBM put it on the
table," said SCO's president and CEO, Darl McBride. "I predict that
the GPL is not stable in its current form because copyright law pre-empts the
GPL."
"There is no doubt that the GPL is at risk right now..."
"SCO asserts that the GPL, under which Linux is distributed, violates the
United States Constitution and the U.S. copyright and patent laws."
"Based on the views of the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court, we
believe that adoption and use of the GPL by significant parts of the software
industry was a mistake... We believe that responsible corporations throughout
the IT industry have advocated use of the GPL without full analysis of its
long-term detriment to our economy. We are confident that these corporations
will ultimately reverse support for the GPL, and will pursue a more responsible
direction."
"Honey, come back... what did I do?"
:-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 07 2005 @ 01:31 AM EST |
from the article:
___________________________________
Q: You've cut research and development spending 40% over the last two years. Are
you concerned that hurts your ability to innovate?
A: While we are small in numbers, we are very high in engineering expertise. The
50 or 60 people working on stuff are very good, very skilled. Sure, we want to
have more R&D. Our goal is to get this revenue line turned around.
...
AND
Q: How many employees do you have now?
A: There are just under 200 employees right now. We let go of around 100 last
year.
___________________________________
so much for 4000...
sum.zero[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Chris Cogdon on Monday, March 07 2005 @ 01:37 AM EST |
| Darl McBride: "It's [OpenServer] like a Humvee - it doesnt' crash".
I would
think the crashing capability is nothing to do with the vehicle, and more to do
with the driver.
Google Search for
Disabled Humvee [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 07 2005 @ 02:33 AM EST |
I believe he is still looking for the millions of lines of code and he has a
(subdued) double standing in for him. Where is the panach? Where is the
authority? Where is the blind-drunk certanity? Where is Darl?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 07 2005 @ 02:35 AM EST |
Q: Do you want him to stay on the board?
A: Ralph [is a] has been ...
Q: What has he helped you do?
A: ... I don't know.
Q: Are you concerned about his ability to serve?
A: ... The company needs ... Canopy shares. As long as [a
scapegoat] is there regarding the Canopy situation we want to remove the
[scapegoat].
Q: Will he stay on the board?
A: No...
Q: Has the new Canopy management team made any requests yet of SCO?
A: We have ... After the Mar. 8 hearing, I would be glad to provide ... value...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 07 2005 @ 02:36 AM EST |
I've been expecting this :) To me the following lines read as "I didn't
burn the house down, it was my brother" who replies "No, it was
him".
It seems they just started blaming each other trying to evade the inevitable
personal lawsuit that is coming.
As he says: "How that's all going to play out, I don't know."
Q: What has he helped you do?
A: Ralph has a great entrepreneurial mind. He's been good on intellectual
property and legal battles. I wouldn't call him the architect of our legal
strategy, but he clearly has added value. How that's all going to play out, I
don't know.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 07 2005 @ 04:59 AM EST |
Q: Has the new Canopy management team made any requests yet of
SCO?
A: We have had some discussions. I spoke with [new Canopy CEO] Bill
Mustard. After the Mar. 8 hearing, I would be glad to provide details. We value
them as our largest shareholder.
Q: Has Canopy made any suggestions that you
sell off the Unix software business?
A: Shareholders don't come to a public
company and make those kinds of decisions. We will work with them. They will
definitely have a voice.
Will the mirky waters clear when Darl next
speaks?
What will be decided or not on Mar 8? Tomorrow.
SCO's prospects
could become clearer in a few weeks. On Mar. 8 a judge will begin a hearing that
could help clarify who controls Canopy. On Mar. 17, SCO is set to defend itself
against delisting in a hearing before Nasdaq. Then on Mar. 18, IBM is supposed
to turn over the new code and other material. The judge has said he will allow
IBM to file another motion to dismiss the case after this next phase of
discovery is completed. Businessweek
If Mustard prevails even in the short term SCOG
MUST clarify their future direction or sales will hit zero. How can Yarro
and Mott stay on the board when SCOG's major shareholder is sueing them for
fraud and other dirty deals?
The big question becomes - What does Mustard
think of the IBM lawsuit? Could this case and others soon be over? A different
management at SCOG can quite legitimately claim to have a view on Unix/Linux and
IP which is different from the previous management. Would they be able to back
out of the court cases without upsetting the judges? What would IBM do?
Will
everyone point the finger at Yarro? He's got some money IBM would like to have
in order to cover their expenses. Will his "secret backers" be exposed? Will
Boies be happy to get out with some semblence of a reputation? SCOG is doomed.
What is best for Canopy and the other Portfolio Companies is surely Mustard's
priority.
SCOG has a nominal value of some $10m and employs 200
people.Hundreds of millions and thousands of people are involved in the other
Canopy Businesses.
Brian S. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 07 2005 @ 08:03 AM EST |
| It's unconstitutional, and violates copyrights and patents.
Oh, and on a side
note, we are reaching out to open source vendors.
You have got to be kidding.
Big as church bells Darl, big as church bells.
Q: Have all the lawsuits, some
against your customers, hurt your ability to sign up new customers and
business?
A: Yes and no. There are lawsuit-related issues that come up with the
sales team. We also have a core set of customers. Their main issue is not
lawsuit-related. They are concerned about us bailing out. We need more [software
makers] to work with. We've got some work to do. We do have some new interest
coming our way with the new product. We are reaching out to open-source
vendors. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 07 2005 @ 09:19 AM EST |
At one point I believe that Canopy owned the majority of SCOX shares. Does
anyone know what their position is now?
It seems to me that if Canopy owns the majority of voting shares, then Yarro is
toast and maybe so is Darl.
It also seems to me that the Noordas have to distance themselves from Yarro's
involvement in tSCOg's activities. If they can prove that he was a rogue actor
acting without their informed consent then, perhaps, they can save Canopy. If
his activities on the SCO board as seen as part of his duties for Canopy then
Canopy is toast too (after the Nazgul get through with tSCOg). I don't think
the corporate veil even has to be penetrated because a company is responsible
for the actions of its employees. It seems too simple. What am I missing?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: philc on Monday, March 07 2005 @ 09:41 AM EST |
Here in the USA, the borad of directors serves at the pleasure of the stock
holders. The stock holders elect the board of directors. The board of directors
hires the president.
Yarro stays on the board at SCO until the stock holders vote to replace him.
Daryl remains president at SCO until the board of directors decide to replace
him.
So asking Daryl whether or not Yarro will remain on the board is just asking an
opionion of someone that is currently on the board and attends the meetings. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: frk3 on Monday, March 07 2005 @ 10:01 AM EST |
| . [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Monday, March 07 2005 @ 10:02 AM EST |
"We are reaching out to open-source vendors" Darl McBride interview
Yeah Darl, reach out and slap someone![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: AllParadox on Monday, March 07 2005 @ 12:04 PM EST |
This is the fun part of reading corporate tea leaves.
Mr. McBride has to take "no position" without saying "I am taking
no position".
The Noorda family, and trust, own control of Canopy, and therefore tSCOg. They
are Mr. McBride's bosses. If he offends them and they win the suit, he is
history, and short history at that.
Mr. Yarro is still on the board of directors of tSCOg. Mr. Yarro is still Mr.
McBride's boss. If McBride offends Yarro and Yarro wins the suit, McBride will
also promptly lose his job.
If your mother and father are fighting, which one is correct? This should get
the same response as "Honey, does this dress make me look fat?" There
is only one thing to do here: fake a heart attack and call 911. This will get
you out of the situation.
---
All is paradox: I no longer practice law, so this is just another layman's
opinion. For a Real Legal Opinion, buy one from a licensed Attorney[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 07 2005 @ 02:00 PM EST |
Interviews have the official version that gets printed, but there's always
another side, the interview that goes on in the participants heads as the
interview progresses. Here's the REAL interview, as recorded by our resident
telepath:
Q: You've blown your 10-K filing with the Securities & Exchange Commission.
What’s up with that?
A: The auditors actually read the damn thing a week or two before we were to
file and had some difficulty with the accounting. There's a chance we may still
file it. It's no big deal, we’re pretty much dead already.
Q: Are you upset that this happened?
A: It's frustrating. IBM didn’t follow the game plan, if they’d just bought us
out none of this would be happening.
Q: Do you have enough cash to stay in business?
A: Business? What business? It's crazy, crazy. But if you look at the core
foundation, Blake, Ralph and myself, we're in pretty good shape, cashwise...
Q: You have new Unix operating system software coming out soon. Will that help?
A: Oh yeah, OpenServer ... It's a software release I think... The early feedback
has been ummmm, uh, like a Humvee… expensive and sucks gas. We've got more
innovating to do.
Q: You've cut R&D spending 40% over the last two years. So what is it,
software or litigation scam?
A: While we are small in numbers, we are very high in brown-nosing expertise.
The couple people still working on stuff are skilled, and they say what we tell
em to say.
Could you define help? I mean, I had two quarters in cash when I joined in June,
2002. Now I’ve got a huge salary. Still, the courtroom could be a problem.
Q: How many employees do you have now?
A: There are somewhere under 200 employees right now.
Q: Will you need to lay off more?
A: We've made the cuts. We may make more.
Q: What are your chances of increasing sales?
A: Hee hee. Right. We have no new products, and no customers.
Q: What about the SCO Source licensing scam, where you expect people to buy a
license to not get sued?
A: Could we talk about something else? We had a few suckers, but there’ve been
some problems. I've been told to shut up until we resolve the courtroom issues.
Q: Have all the lawsuits against your customers hurt your business?
A: Well, the sales team is in hiding. We do have some diehard customers who
haven’t bailed yet... We've got some work to do on our image, however. We’re
trying to con some open-source vendors.
Q: Ralph Yarro was terminated as CEO of Canopy Group for allegedly overpaying
himself. Is Ralph Yarro still on SCO's board?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you want him to stay on the board?
A: Ralph is a bud. He's been very supportive, and I appreciate that.
Q: What has he helped you do?
A: Ralph has a scammers mind. He's into intellectual property and legal battles.
I don’t want to point fingers, but he clearly has pushed things. If it all
collapses, better him than me.
Q: Are you concerned about his ability to serve?
A: The company needs a scapegoat. It's important to figure out where Canopy is
going. Canopy is the smokescreen, and the money laundry. If Canopy blames it all
on Ralph, then I’ll back Canopy.
Q: Will he stay on the board?
A: No one here has asked him to step down. We’re waiting to see which way the
wind blows.
Q: Has the new Canopy management team made any requests yet of SCO?
A: We have had some discussions. After the Mar. 8 hearing, if I’m still here,
I’ll be glad to talk about it. After all, they control the money.
Q: Has Canopy made any suggestions regarding the Unix software business?
A: Not yet, but they definitely have a voice. I’ll follow the money
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Excellent - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 07 2005 @ 02:15 PM EST
|
|
|
|
